"Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" wrote:
> > Mutual tolerance --a wonderful thing, in view of the fact that none of
> > us really KNOW what we are talking about.
> Tolerance is an even greater obligation of listeners than it is
> of speakers. "Communication skills" cut both ways: if one takes
> offense or misinterprests a simple, honest, expression of opinion
> like "the idea of God is nonsense", then it is the listener whose
> ability to communicate is broken, not the speaker.
I find no reason to disagree with you on this. But this is only
because I am as blunt as you are. Others might regard the
responsibility for tolerance as reciprocal, in so far as the WAY
we express disagreement with others should indicate a respect
for their persons, an aspect of which is their viewpoints.
But, candid as I am, I might have said "no one has ever been
able to demonstrate a real referent for the concept of 'God'",
a falsifiable assertion. My objection to your statement is that
if the idea of "God" were really nonsense, no one would know
what you were talking about.
Robert M. Owen
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:28 MDT